Portillo v. United States
62 A.3d 1243
D.C.2013Background
- Portillo was convicted of two counts of first-degree felony murder while armed after a six-day trial.
- Portillo argued the Monroe-Farrell pretrial ineffectiveness inquiry was inadequate; the court remanded for further inquiry.
- The Monroe-Farrell hearing noted concerns about communication and language barriers between Portillo and his Spanish-speaking counsel.
- Trial counsel were Ferris Bond and John Machado; Machado was appointed to assist Bond due to Portillo’s limited English.
- A bench conference revealed language and communication issues; trial date moved from November 1 to November 29, 2010 due to scheduling.
- On remand, the court was tasked with determining whether pretrial counsel’s preparation violated Portillo’s Sixth Amendment rights and, if necessary, vacating and remanding for new procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Monroe-Farrell inquiry | Portillo | State | Remand for fuller Monroe-Farrell inquiry |
| Plain error in closing argument | Portillo | State | No plain-error reversal; no sua sponte intervention |
| Constructive amendment of the burglary indictment | Portillo | State | Indictment constructively amended; plain error review applied; no reversal on this basis |
| Remand vs. resentencing due to merging convictions | Portillo | State | Remand to vacate merged convictions; resentencing deemed unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Monroe v. United States, 389 A.2d 811 (D.C.1978) (establishes Monroe-Farrell duty to inquire into pretrial ineffectiveness)
- Farrell v. United States, 391 A.2d 755 (D.C.1978) (defines scope of Monroe-Farrell inquiry)
- McFadden v. United States, 614 A.2d 11 (D.C.1992) (remedies for inadequate Monroe-Farrell inquiry; remand/ reversal standards)
- Nelson v. United States, 601 A.2d 582 (D.C.1991) (remand justified when record lacks adequate pretrial preparation details)
- Forte v. United States, 856 A.2d 567 (D.C.2004) (contrast where dialogue cured concerns; not controlling here)
- Johnson v. United States, 616 A.2d 1216 (D.C.1992) (plain-error standard for indictments and amendments)
- Whalen v. United States, 379 A.2d 1152 (D.C.1977) (indictment constructively amended doctrine standard)
- Massey v. United States, 320 A.2d 296 (D.C.1974) (evidentiary inferences from entry with intent to steal)
- Lester v. United States, 25 A.3d 867 (D.C.2011) (vacatur vs. resentencing in merger contexts)